AMBASSADOR Evadne Coye yesterday disclosed, under blistering cross-examination, that the lawyer from the US law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips who had joined the Jamaican delegation in Washington to discuss the extradition request of Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke did not participate in the meeting at the Justice Department.

Coye, during the fiery grilling from attorney Oliver Smith, told the commission looking into the circumstances surrounding Coke’s extradition request, that the lawyer, Kevin Di Gregory, showed up late for the December 17, 2009 meeting and did not participate.

The ambassador, who is also the permanent secretary in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, had testified on Monday that the lawyer had been brought into the delegation selected at the prime minister’s residence at Vale Royal in November 2009.

In addition she testified that Solicitor General Douglas Leys had told her that Di Gregory was being brought on to boost the team due to his knowledge of the US law and his expertise from working with the Justice Department.

Coye also testified that Leys had told her that Justice Minister and Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne had given approval for the Manatt lawyer to join the ranks of the Jamaican delegation. The delegation included Deputy Solicitor General Lackston Robinson, Leys and Coye.

Yesterday, Coye spent most of her time on the witness stand defending herself after Smith, who is one of the attorneys representing Leys, attacked her credibility and painted her as a person who was not forthcoming with the truth.

Coye was ruffled on several occasions and came close to losing her cool and had to constantly petition the commission chairman, Emil George, QC, as the questioning grew intense.

She was pointedly told by Smith that she was not being truthful with the commission in testifying that it was Robinson who told her that Di Gregory would be joining the Jamaican delegation. Smith, through his questioning, had also indicated that Coye was not being truthful when she testified on Monday that there had been a series of meetings between Government officials and officials from the US Embassy in Kingston leading up to the December 17 meeting. She is expected to be brought back for further cross-examination at a later date.

Meanwhile, Heman LaMont, director of Diaspora and consular affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, testified under cross-examination from attorney Patrick Atkinson that if an extradition request was to have fallen into the hands of say a politician, he wouldn’t know how it got there because his duty is to forward the request to the Ministry of Justice after it came to him.

Earlier in the morning session of the televised commission, being held at the Jamaica Conference Centre in downtown Kingston, Harold Brady, the attorney at the centre of the Manatt affair, appeared on summons, along with the Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn and former police commissioner Hardley Lewin.

Brady’s attorney, Georgia Gibson-Henlin, objected to him giving evidence before the commission and informed that an affidavit outlining the reasons for the objection had been filed with the commission. That matter will be heard on Monday. Brady is citing attorney-client privilege.

During the height of the extradition saga that threatened to topple the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Government, Prime Minister Bruce Golding had said that he had given the go-ahead for Brady to secure the services of United States law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips to engage Washington on the matter. Golding said, however, that he had done so in his capacity as the leader of the JLP.

Llewellyn yesterday informed that next Wednesday a statement to the commission will be given by her deputy, Jeremy Taylor, who is in charge of the extradition department in her office. Taylor will be available to give evidence before the commission the following Monday.

Lewin will be giving a statement on or before January 31. He is to give evidence on February 3.

Meanwhile, the commission adjourned until Monday, while the commissioners decide how to proceed in light of the fact that not all witnesses have given statements.